I agree, it’s like all I read is how Forrest was being the aggressor and doing more, but when does punching or kicking the air come into account when judging a fight? That’s what I was gonna say in MY column..lol…however I think that’s a weak argument in the scheme of things, I don’t discredit Forrest’s win but just simply saying he outworked Rampage is a poor assessment of the fight and shouldn’t have given Forrest any of the edge in any round outside of the 2nd…if he was outworking him and landing meaningful shots, that’s one thing…but missing a large portion of his shots…that wouldn’t fly in boxing and it shouldn’t in MMA

Yep…Rampage’s connect % was much higher than Forrest’s.

Yeah…I’m disagreeing with this. Rampage was controlled
during this fight. That’s what counted. Besides, you can
only argue that he actually took two of the last 3 rounds.
(I’m only willing to stand on one. With reservations.)

That’s what people are failing to see here- These are “rounded”
fights. You score by the round, not the entire fight on the cards.
Even if Rampage did win two of the last 3 rounds, and you KNOW
he didn’t win three, it would have only given him a draw at best.
Because…wait for it…Forrest won rd 2 10-8. You kno it’s true.

As it stands, one Judge got it right: 48-46;
for the winner: Forrest Griffin.

Every other argument is a stretch in Jackson’s defense.

The point I was making is that the majority of Rampage’s punches were power shots that landed and did more damage…and those type of strikes have a higher % rate of ending a fight when compared to leg kicks. Furthermore, Griffin hurt Jackson’s leg in the 2nd round…but, if you watch the fight…Jackson moved just fine in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th rounds.

Griffin landed 57 power shots total…21 of those were leg kicks….whereas Rampage landed 45 power shots total…with 42 of those being head/body shots…which have a higher propensity to end a fight. As I’ve stated above your post…I’m not arguing who should have won…I’m arguing judging criteria and things they need to take into account when watching a fight.

I’m not arguing or defending who won either;
I’m pointing out why Griffin won. Take away
the fight total percentage, and look at round
by round. On that basis, Quintin clearly lost.

Forrest won at least two rounds definitively,
and with one close. Rampage won one round
definitively, one closely, and another in the air.

On that basis, the best he could of hoped for
was a draw. Which he didn’t get.

Also, regardless of which shots have more of a
propensity to win the end a fight, shots are tallied
by damage dealt. On that point, the Leg kicks
clearly hurt Rampage more then the Head shots
hurt Griffin.

Soo…it was a good call.
Iffy at points, but relatable.

Let’s see…Rampage’s punches rocked Forrest a couple of times, and even dropped him one time…which was clearly the closest that the fight could have been stopped by the ref. Forrest’s kicks hurt Rampage but never came close to ending the fight.

O.k but to use those numbers and to put them into context don’t you need to break them down by round since the fight is scored round by round.

Because while I know this isn’t the case but as an example half of those punches by Rampage could have been in one round. Winning him one round clearly but leaving him doing not much else in the other rounds.

So I think if your going to make an argument based on statistics and scoring it needs to be broken down by round or it’s misleading.

Plus I think I could make an argument that Forrest’s kicks came just as close to ending the fight as that punch that dropped Forrest. Just like if that punch would have been a little better it could have knocked Forrest out the same could be said about Forrest’s leg kick that had Rampage shaky for a few seconds. How do you know if that kick wasn’t a little harder it doesn’t just completely disable Rampage’s knee and the fight has to be stopped?

“How do you know if that kick wasn’t a little harder it doesn’t just completely disable Rampage’s knee and the fight has to be stopped?”

Because it all goes back to what I was talking about initially…strikes to the head/body have more of a propensity to end a fight…way moreso than kicks to the legs.

Well I don’t disagree with that.

I said I think I could make an argument. I didn’t say it would be a good argument. Only because your right very few fights have been stopped because of leg kicks.

Gotcha :)